I was not referring to Swiss Army knives. While useful, they are impractical for many things.
There are many state laws against the carrying of knives with blades longer than X (or a subjective and ambiguous length not actually listed in the law). However, they are rarely enforced and many people ignore them as the irrelevancies they are. There are notable exceptions, but those tend to be the police states (anyone paying attention can list all or most without me stating them explicitly).
A revolution? In a democracy? Who are we going to vote for when that's over?
Any likely revolution will end in a situation where the country is no longer a democracy (in anything but name, at least). There's simply too much concentration of military power. Only a tiny fraction of the military will cease taking orders if those orders are to subdue their own countrymen. It's the second revolution that will, if anything.
Yes, it is bizarre. I've carried a knife for years, and use it nearly every day for a myriad of things. I know many other people who carry knives, and not a single one of them does so in order to commit crimes.
I should extend that a little: there are those who likely have ulterior motives as well, rather than being concerned with the truth. A lot of people involved are politicians, after all.
It's not about not paying taxes, it's about apportionment. Both sides want things for free, they just want different things, and want them paid for by different groups in different ways.
The mess we're in is more about not restraining unnatural entities called "corporations." The tax burden should also be changed so that income is actually taxed, rather than wages. I don't consider wages to be income, since they are traded in exchange for something everyone has in limited amounts: time and effort. Capital gains from corporate investments should be where the majority of taxes come from, as it is almost entirely dependent on unnatural entities for its production.
Was this supposed to be sarcastic disagreement? If so, it fails utterly.
I can respect the decision of a person who hands their wallet over to a mugger in order to avoid violence, just as I can respect the position that theft is immoral. I personally would not do so under most circumstances, but that does not invalidate another's decision to do so.
It still irks me that FDR is worshiped by some people. He clearly extorted the Supreme Court by threatening to make it a puppet court, since they clearly realized most of his proposed legislation was not Constitutional. I think that the approval of the Supreme Court should be required to enact laws. That way they would not be the most irrelevant part of government, since they have no way of enforcing their rulings.
I also agree that we need term limits. I believe it should be one term in any given federal post. The salary cap should be no more than the median income of the US, and they should derive no remunerative benefits from the office after leaving it.
"The people" means the same thing in the 2nd Amendment as it does everywhere else it appears. The reason for the identical wording would seem to indicate the class of people concerned is the same.
tl;dr: The 2nd Amendment would be redundant if it was intended solely for members of a standing army or active militia troops, as Congress was granted that authority in Article 1, Sec. 8. "The people" means everyone recognized to be of legal age and who have not been deprived of the right through due process of law.
Much like powers of Congress, the rights of the people don't necessarily mean that the use of the right go along with the reason the right was explicitly protected. Voting rights are there so that people have a voice, even if today people do not really have a voice by voting. The 4th Amendment was intended to protect the innocent, even if the guilty can use it to escape punishment. The right to bear arms was intended to promote the effective use of militia by allowing, and sometimes requiring, private individuals to provide their own arms, even if it today conscription is not used actively (though registration for such conscription is still legally required of males between 18 and 25).
The courts have repeatedly held that the powers granted Congress may be explicitly used to ends others than those provided for as rationale for granting those powers. As such, rights should be protected even if the use of that right is not in line with the reason given for its protection. The dependent clause in the 2nd Amendment gives the reason it is protected. It does not, however, explicitly limit the right to just the context of active membership in a regulated militia.
So, anyone claiming it means only members of an active, regulated militia is a moron, or believes the Founders all had Alzheimer's; they must've forgotten they'd already dealt with authorizing the arming of the regulated militia when they delegated that power to Congress.
That's one area the Federal government legitimately has control over, but they fail to use it. States have no authority to prevent out-of-state health insurance companies from selling within their borders.
There really is no freedom of religion in the US. There is only freedom that does not overly annoy the powers that be in executing the actions they wish to take.
Most exemptions require you to be a member of a religion that predates a given mandate. Nobody else gets to claim that exemption, even if a new religion is founded that takes the same stance on that particular issue. It does not matter how fervently believe, you have no freedom to practice as you choose if it relates to how the government operates and does not predate a given operation. Even then, people like the Amish still end up in court over various practices. Usually those are related to employment.
Article 1, Sec. 8 could be used to authorize the requirement to purchase arms and equipment for militia use if construed rather loosely.
The Commerce Clause being used to require health insurance purchase because it is related to interstate trade is a stretch many orders of magnitude greater than that required above.
Pretty much spot-on, but this is not a point that bears complaining about:
Obama did more recess appoints getting around the Senate approval process than any other President.
It is the Senate's job to advise and consent, and if they can't be bothered to get their collective heads out of their asses the Constitution provides for the power of recess appointments. When recess appointments happen, the blame lies with the Senate. Every President, including the ones you hate, has complete authority to conduct recess appointments.
Or "I wrote a program that provides a passphrase based on input, so I do not know the password." The program itself is not evidence of anything, and can safely be deleted from the remote server it's stored on when they seize the laptop. The password is now not within the user's power to retrieve, since the salt in the program is also not within the user's recollection.
(No, really, it is. There is no SS "trust fund". I can write checks to myself all day; it doesn't mean I have more money.)
Unfortunately, there are enough people out there who don't believe the government writing checks to itself fails to result in increased capital, including economists, that the lie will continue to be told until it's too late to do anything that is not incredibly drastic.
and if they did, then you might spend more wisely...
I think this part is overly optimistic. Politicians won't spend more wisely with increased taxes. It's not their money, and since both parties spend like drunken sailors, without real consequences from voters, they have no incentive to show responsibility in spending it.
Slashdot Mirror
People, in general, have no ability to grasp or accept theoretical consequences. Once theory becomes reality, it's usually too late.
Most people get exactly what they deserve. Those who can grasp theoretical consequences and point them out ahead of time just get screwed.
Yes, General Grievous did make a mistake.
In fact, if this promotes more people to *save* money (and not spend it at all), it could even potentially slow economic growth.
This is the USA we're talking about. There's no need to worry that this might happen. It won't.
Much about the law is bullshit. Politicians are usually more concerned with appearance than reality though.
I was not referring to Swiss Army knives. While useful, they are impractical for many things.
There are many state laws against the carrying of knives with blades longer than X (or a subjective and ambiguous length not actually listed in the law). However, they are rarely enforced and many people ignore them as the irrelevancies they are. There are notable exceptions, but those tend to be the police states (anyone paying attention can list all or most without me stating them explicitly).
A revolution? In a democracy? Who are we going to vote for when that's over?
Any likely revolution will end in a situation where the country is no longer a democracy (in anything but name, at least). There's simply too much concentration of military power. Only a tiny fraction of the military will cease taking orders if those orders are to subdue their own countrymen. It's the second revolution that will, if anything.
Yes, it is bizarre. I've carried a knife for years, and use it nearly every day for a myriad of things. I know many other people who carry knives, and not a single one of them does so in order to commit crimes.
This is probably one of the most insightful comments attached to this story.
Glad to see you only read the first sentence.
I should extend that a little: there are those who likely have ulterior motives as well, rather than being concerned with the truth. A lot of people involved are politicians, after all.
On this issue, yes, I believe anyone who disagrees is a moron. On others, no, since this is not about other issues.
It's not about not paying taxes, it's about apportionment. Both sides want things for free, they just want different things, and want them paid for by different groups in different ways.
The mess we're in is more about not restraining unnatural entities called "corporations." The tax burden should also be changed so that income is actually taxed, rather than wages. I don't consider wages to be income, since they are traded in exchange for something everyone has in limited amounts: time and effort. Capital gains from corporate investments should be where the majority of taxes come from, as it is almost entirely dependent on unnatural entities for its production.
Was this supposed to be sarcastic disagreement? If so, it fails utterly.
I can respect the decision of a person who hands their wallet over to a mugger in order to avoid violence, just as I can respect the position that theft is immoral. I personally would not do so under most circumstances, but that does not invalidate another's decision to do so.
It still irks me that FDR is worshiped by some people. He clearly extorted the Supreme Court by threatening to make it a puppet court, since they clearly realized most of his proposed legislation was not Constitutional. I think that the approval of the Supreme Court should be required to enact laws. That way they would not be the most irrelevant part of government, since they have no way of enforcing their rulings.
I also agree that we need term limits. I believe it should be one term in any given federal post. The salary cap should be no more than the median income of the US, and they should derive no remunerative benefits from the office after leaving it.
"The people" means the same thing in the 2nd Amendment as it does everywhere else it appears. The reason for the identical wording would seem to indicate the class of people concerned is the same.
tl;dr: The 2nd Amendment would be redundant if it was intended solely for members of a standing army or active militia troops, as Congress was granted that authority in Article 1, Sec. 8. "The people" means everyone recognized to be of legal age and who have not been deprived of the right through due process of law.
Much like powers of Congress, the rights of the people don't necessarily mean that the use of the right go along with the reason the right was explicitly protected. Voting rights are there so that people have a voice, even if today people do not really have a voice by voting. The 4th Amendment was intended to protect the innocent, even if the guilty can use it to escape punishment. The right to bear arms was intended to promote the effective use of militia by allowing, and sometimes requiring, private individuals to provide their own arms, even if it today conscription is not used actively (though registration for such conscription is still legally required of males between 18 and 25).
The courts have repeatedly held that the powers granted Congress may be explicitly used to ends others than those provided for as rationale for granting those powers. As such, rights should be protected even if the use of that right is not in line with the reason given for its protection. The dependent clause in the 2nd Amendment gives the reason it is protected. It does not, however, explicitly limit the right to just the context of active membership in a regulated militia.
So, anyone claiming it means only members of an active, regulated militia is a moron, or believes the Founders all had Alzheimer's; they must've forgotten they'd already dealt with authorizing the arming of the regulated militia when they delegated that power to Congress.
That's one area the Federal government legitimately has control over, but they fail to use it. States have no authority to prevent out-of-state health insurance companies from selling within their borders.
There really is no freedom of religion in the US. There is only freedom that does not overly annoy the powers that be in executing the actions they wish to take.
Most exemptions require you to be a member of a religion that predates a given mandate. Nobody else gets to claim that exemption, even if a new religion is founded that takes the same stance on that particular issue. It does not matter how fervently believe, you have no freedom to practice as you choose if it relates to how the government operates and does not predate a given operation. Even then, people like the Amish still end up in court over various practices. Usually those are related to employment.
Article 1, Sec. 8 could be used to authorize the requirement to purchase arms and equipment for militia use if construed rather loosely.
The Commerce Clause being used to require health insurance purchase because it is related to interstate trade is a stretch many orders of magnitude greater than that required above.
Pretty much spot-on, but this is not a point that bears complaining about:
Obama did more recess appoints getting around the Senate approval process than any other President.
It is the Senate's job to advise and consent, and if they can't be bothered to get their collective heads out of their asses the Constitution provides for the power of recess appointments. When recess appointments happen, the blame lies with the Senate. Every President, including the ones you hate, has complete authority to conduct recess appointments.
Like the Bible, it's selectively interpreted and ignored when it conflicts with what people want to do.
Or "I wrote a program that provides a passphrase based on input, so I do not know the password." The program itself is not evidence of anything, and can safely be deleted from the remote server it's stored on when they seize the laptop. The password is now not within the user's power to retrieve, since the salt in the program is also not within the user's recollection.
Tiny URLs annoy the fuck out of me. I want to curbstomp people who use them unless they are absolutely, unconditionally necessary.
(No, really, it is. There is no SS "trust fund". I can write checks to myself all day; it doesn't mean I have more money.)
Unfortunately, there are enough people out there who don't believe the government writing checks to itself fails to result in increased capital, including economists, that the lie will continue to be told until it's too late to do anything that is not incredibly drastic.
and if they did, then you might spend more wisely...
I think this part is overly optimistic. Politicians won't spend more wisely with increased taxes. It's not their money, and since both parties spend like drunken sailors, without real consequences from voters, they have no incentive to show responsibility in spending it.